rewriting history 35mm

I saw this question:
"Why is everyone saying the 5D is the problem??

It's the lens. Vigneting is the same no matter what FF body it goes on."

Of course this makes me realize that the review of the 5D, by saying there is an issue with FF sensors and weither they will make a new trend is rediculous.

"However there are many photographers quite happy with the results they get from their current cameras, only history will tell if the EOS 5D is the start of a full frame revolution or simply the first of a new niche format."

The history comes from film 35mm cameras of course. Full Frame is not at all a new niche, new format at all.

I prefer the thought that no one asked for a smaller sensor
"Sir could I have a smaller sensor for my camera?"

When we all shot with film some of us preferred what effects we got with the limits of lenses..as in the way we have perifial vision. Not everything is in focus in our eyes either. Its all in perception.
Daniel

This is what I have been thinking all along. This issue is implied by many as being a camera problem instead of a lense problem. Once a FF Canon can shoot 8 FPS with same or greater pixel density as 1D MkII, I will be buying it. I have all L glass anyway and any leftover vignetting can easily be fixed in PS or just kept.

• John

I honestly can't see vignetting ruining a shot to the point where you can't brighten up the corners to fix it. Unless the vignetting is really bad, and I wouldn't expect to see that.

What I'd be more conerned about is softening and chromatic abberation. I wonder how most L lenses do here, especially zooms vs. primes.

I currently have the 100-400L and use it with a 1.6x crop. If I were to go to a 1.3 or full frame camera, I'd certianly want to use my tele converter, which would also make me think twice about using a zoom in the first place. I'd probably have to pick up a 400mm or 500mm prime as well. Quite an investment... I might have to wait a bit yet.

I'm currently aiming at replacing my D60 in about a year with whatever happens to be in the 1dmkII line at the time. Something 1.3c, weather sealed, and fast.

--
~ Rylee Isitt

Rylee I wonder. Is your concern just theoretical or real? After all you don't seem to have a FF camera now. I don't know if you recall shooting with 35mm film...and how BAD it was.
Or was it?
Were people satisfied with their old film cameras and lenses?
I think so.

So why the concern now?
Again, it is because Phil has added to the perception by rewriting history.
First we had FF and people did not know there was some supposed problem.
No one asked for the smaller sensor but bought it anyway.
Now FF looks like a problem?
Huh?

Rylee Isitt said:

I honestly can't see vignetting ruining a shot to the point where
you can't brighten up the corners to fix it. Unless the vignetting
is really bad, and I wouldn't expect to see that.

What I'd be more conerned about is softening and chromatic
abberation. I wonder how most L lenses do here, especially zooms
vs. primes.

I currently have the 100-400L and use it with a 1.6x crop. If I
were to go to a 1.3 or full frame camera, I'd certianly want to use
my tele converter, which would also make me think twice about using
a zoom in the first place. I'd probably have to pick up a 400mm or
500mm prime as well. Quite an investment... I might have to wait a
bit yet.

I'm currently aiming at replacing my D60 in about a year with
whatever happens to be in the 1dmkII line at the time. Something
1.3c, weather sealed, and fast.

--
~ Rylee Isitt

Click to expand...

--
Not for hire and not an amateur

dead eye said:

I saw this question:
"Why is everyone saying the 5D is the problem??

It's the lens. Vigneting is the same no matter what FF body it goes
on."

Click to expand...

Vignetting seems to be worse on a FF DSLR than FF film. The DSLR sensor does not like rays coming in at wide angles as the photosites aren't efficent at capturing light with these rays. That's why they use a microlens array so these rays can be captured and bought in closer to parallel to the lens axis to maximise photoncapture. However, this seems to cause light loss in the corners. So it is not quite the same situation as 35mm film.

Having said that plenty of software is available that will correct vignetting.

YES! Right on!
--
Bill

I thought it was the microlenses (AFAIK invented by Sony AKA HyperHAD) that was causing the vignetting (not solving it)??

dead eye said:

I prefer the thought that no one asked for a smaller sensor
"Sir could I have a smaller sensor for my camera?"

Daniel

Click to expand...

So very true....

Its the P&S people who upgraded to a 10D/20D/300D who are confused about the hoopla about a FF. They never knew a 35mm camera, so they don't know any better.

I'd guesstimate that a large majority of folks never shot film to know the difference. So for them, it is a new world, full of confusion and FUD. Add to that the wonderful ability to pixel-peep around here, and you've got mass hysteria!

Doc Tonic said:

dead eye said:

I prefer the thought that no one asked for a smaller sensor
"Sir could I have a smaller sensor for my camera?"

Daniel

Click to expand...

So very true....

Its the P&S people who upgraded to a 10D/20D/300D who are confused
about the hoopla about a FF. They never knew a 35mm camera, so they
don't know any better.

Click to expand...

thx1138 said:

Vignetting seems to be worse on a FF DSLR than FF film. The DSLR
sensor does not like rays coming in at wide angles as the
photosites aren't efficent at capturing light with these rays.
That's why they use a microlens array so these rays can be captured
and bought in closer to parallel to the lens axis to maximise
photoncapture. However, this seems to cause light loss in the
corners. So it is not quite the same situation as 35mm film.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but two observations:

1. Not all lenses show severe vignetting with FF DSLRs. While it is possible that FF DSLRs "exaggerate" the problem slightly, it cannot be a very big difference. If it were, then all lenses would show severe vignetting, and that simply is not the case. Look at all the enthusiasts for obscure (and expensive) European WA primes which work well with FF sensors.

2. I find corner sharpness and (the far less important issue of) vignetting get my attention because of Photoshop. Like many others, I frequently check my 1Ds2 images at 100%. With my monitor, that is equivalent to looking at a 40.5X enlargement (38.3" x 57.4") from a distance of slightly over 12". Believe it or not, imperfections are quite visible at such high enlargement. They are far less noticable when I print at 12" x 18". Indeed, the imperfections look just like what I would expect from a similar enlargement from 35mm film.

I shot film for many years , I never used or had the lenses I have now which I bought with my cropped DSLR in mind

Affordable FF wasnt an option for a digital shooter till now and neither was the ability to see EXACTLY what those lenses did on FF unless one continued to shoot film. Don't assume that everyone who comments on the compromises one makes with FF and current lenses is ignorant or a newbie or a P&S shooter. And following many arguments here about "its not the gear but the photographer" , the implication that P&S shooters are not real photographers or whatever you mean to imply in your patronisation does not hold.

Rodney Gold

The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall is.......The feeling you get when you stop

When was the last time you saw a film camera manufacturer make a 20 mm SLR and get Kodak to make 20mm chrome so you could get by with cheaper glass and use only the "center" of the image?

The whole discussion is pointless in any case.

---------------
Grant

If it's TRUTH you're after ..
.. read the multiplication table.

Hello Rod,

I am not sure who you are addressing here or just what you want to say regarding P&S photographers.
What is interesting is that FF should be considered new at all. Isn't in?

This quote below may be interesting, from MIchael Reichamann in his review of the 5D

"People need to bear in mind the reason that all manufacturers went to APS sized imaging chips in the first place. It wasn't because of any inherent advantage that the smaller sized chips offered, other than that they were significantly less expensive to manufacture. Add to this the ability to use a smaller shutter, smaller prism, and smaller mirror, and the financial advantages to the camera makers were cumulative. The advantages to the photographer were minimal, other than the one big benefit of getting affordable DSLRs. But, because full-frame cameras were either excessively expensive, or nonexistent in an individual maker's lens mount, the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame. Other than lower cost, there isn't much advantage, and consequently as chip yields improve and manufacturing technology advances we'll inevitably see the price differential for full-frame over reduced frame diminish. I'll leave it to your imagination what the implications of this might be for camera makers and photographers over the next few years."

I did not know that the sensor could be to blame for the differences in FF lenses and the few now made for the smaller sensors. Considering what people have wrote above there may be some differences indeed but I subscribe to the idea that they are not so significant. And given that, the issues of the FF lenses is not new either, its just being repackaged as a problem for FF DSLRs, perhaps by the people who subscribe to the emporer's new clothes in the smaller sensors. That is what I call re- writing history. Phil adds to the problem in the last statements of his review.
Daniel

DoctorG1 said:

I shot film for many years , I never used or had the lenses I have
now which I bought with my cropped DSLR in mind
Affordable FF wasnt an option for a digital shooter till now and
neither was the ability to see EXACTLY what those lenses did on FF
unless one continued to shoot film. Don't assume that everyone who
comments on the compromises one makes with FF and current lenses is
ignorant or a newbie or a P&S shooter. And following many arguments
here about "its not the gear but the photographer" , the
implication that P&S shooters are not real photographers or
whatever you mean to imply in your patronisation does not hold.

Rodney Gold
The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall
is.......The feeling you get when you stop

Click to expand...

--
Not for hire and not an amateur

I was reffering to fact that it was implied that only newbies or other "lesser creatures" who never shot film are the ones "complaining" not to the fact that light fall off etc is a fact of life with FF sensors and current lenses.

The discsussion is not at all pointless as there ARE scads of folk who have never shot with FF or film or either with the lenses they have and they need to be aware of compromises that have to be made and how their current lenses will act with a FF digital camera. Actually , the initial discussion is pointless as dredging up "history" and saying thats what it was like in the old days does not make the compromises go away. The history being referred to in Phils review is future history , yet to be written , not past. At the moment FF digital is a very much a niche market with Canon the only player right now and only 2 current DSLR's being available as FF.

--
Rodney Gold

The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall is.......The feeling you get when you stop

Most everyone shooting with a DSLR barring a select few have had the emperors new clothes (cropped sensors) foist upon them , its now todays fashion and current standard despite the reasons for it. Most DSLR users have selected lenses and accessories that match their "new" format , so now going back to the good old days of FF does actually create issues in terms of range , corners , light fall off etc with existing equipment. Some think this inconsequential and some dont.

Those that think this inconsequential are prone to heaping scorn on those that do think it's an issue and mainly imply that they are ignorant or whiners or newbies or generally are pretty patronising toward them - thats absolute twaddle.
As I said in a previous post , the history Phil refers to has yet to be written.

In the case of the 5d , if one wants to buy a camera with the resolution and image quality it has , there is no other option but to accept its FF sensor and the compromises that go with it. Do you think it's a bad thing to warn users that have not experienced these about it?
--
Rodney Gold

The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall is.......The feeling you get when you stop

" Do you

DoctorG1 said:

think it's a bad thing to warn users that have not experienced
these about it?

Click to expand...

"
Do I? No. Its good to warm people.

Anyway people who need to be warned should also be aware that the great photos of the past that they may admire, if they were taken with 35mm film, had the same problem. Warn them that people have had this 'problem' and succeeded in making great photos. The 'problem' wasn't a problem in the very recent past.
Thats all.

I can't imagine someone is offended by this. I am not asking you to be either. We are simply observing here with no intent of offending anyone.
Daniel

DoctorG1 said:

Most everyone shooting with a DSLR barring a select few have had
the emperors new clothes (cropped sensors) foist upon them , its
now todays fashion and current standard despite the reasons for it.
Most DSLR users have selected lenses and accessories that match
their "new" format , so now going back to the good old days of FF
does actually create issues in terms of range , corners , light
fall off etc with existing equipment. Some think this
inconsequential and some dont.
Those that think this inconsequential are prone to heaping scorn on
those that do think it's an issue and mainly imply that they are
ignorant or whiners or newbies or generally are pretty patronising
toward them - thats absolute twaddle.
As I said in a previous post , the history Phil refers to has yet
to be written.
In the case of the 5d , if one wants to buy a camera with the
resolution and image quality it has , there is no other option but
to accept its FF sensor and the compromises that go with it. Do you
think it's a bad thing to warn users that have not experienced
these about it?
--
Rodney Gold
The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall
is.......The feeling you get when you stop

Click to expand...

--
Not for hire and not an amateur

DoctorG1 said:

In the case of the 5d , if one wants to buy a camera with the
resolution and image quality it has , there is no other option but
to accept its FF sensor and the compromises that go with it. Do you
think it's a bad thing to warn users that have not experienced
these about it?
--
Rodney Gold

Click to expand...

But that was my entire point...those who shot 35mm film already know about the how a lens designed to work on a FF "35mm" camera is supposed to work. Those umm "limitations" are how the lens was designed to work to begin with....

Therefore the only people who should be "surprised" at how a 35mm lens works on a 35mm "FF" sensor were those who never shot film. All of these "artifacts" that are seen on a FF, were always there on 35mm because its the same size system and how it was designed to originally work.

I agree...

http://www.pbase.com/adalberto_tiburzi/ff

Adal

Actually the problem is not as bad as film, because PS can easily fix it. Especialy if you shoot Raw.

EL